The Stupidest Thing You've Ever Heard

[Scumpernickle]

The fact that people pay money for "Twilight."

This, and Youtube comments.

 

[.Mudkipz.]

There was a girl in my class when we were going on an excursion she was asked to fill out the form... she asked me what the date was and im like 21/3/09 and she says thanks 2mins later... erm sorry to ask... whats the date?

/facepalm

 

[DocBalance]

The Theory of Evolution.

Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands

If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.

I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.

what are you talking about?!? you can see evolution with your own two eyes! you can see as fossils slowly change shape as you go on to younger fossils in sinc with the transformation of the earth! its there! its solid fact! anything else is just wishful thinking (aka - religion)
oh and btw natural selection and evolution are pretty much the same thing, natural selection is the process through which evolution occurs, say, the freaky fish thats (100-1 odds) grown legs hops out of the water and all his brothers and sisters get eaten by sharks, his kids inherit legs - they survive etc

Um, no. There is no evidence of either of these claims. Name one, just one, that actually has a full record, and then we'll talk.

Please, just stop. Not just you, stop this pointless argument. You're not going to change your mind, they're not going to change theirs, it's just getting pointless now.

OT: Read this on the internet about a college science lecture
Teacher: If an astronaut drops a pen on the moon, will it move or stay still?
Student: It will drop.
Teacher: Incorrect, as there is no gravity on the moon. (most of the class agreed with her)
Student: That makes no sense. If there is no gravity, then how do the astronauts stay there?
Teacher: They have heavy shoes...

Sorry, I'm kind of a debate nerd, any time an argument comes up I have to answer it. It's instinctual.

 

[The-Jake]

You can divide by zero; the result is infinity.

Not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_by_zero

THis same co-worker also claimed that he and a friend hacked into the worlds Nuclear Launch codes (U.S.A.,Russia, etc.) and created a program that, if they did not input a code every so often, would launch every single nuclear missile into the sun and cause it to either explode or go supernova (either way it would have destroyed Earth).

So many nested layers of stupid. The rest aside, using every nuke in the world against the Sun all at once wouldn't even TICKLE the Sun. Hell, doing that to the Earth wouldn't even affect any part other than the crust. Sure, humanity would die, but that's peanuts to Earth. The Sun is millions of times bigger than that, and POWERED BY NUCLEAR FUSION.
...Do nukes even have the reaction mass to get from here to the Sun? I don't actually know.

The base supposition that life was created by an omnipotent being(which I wholeheartedly believe in), is not based in science, but in Faith, which I believe to be the proper venue for dealing with such intangibilities as the beginning, development, and over-all meaning of life.

This is what William of Ockham believed--he felt very strongly that the only way to God is through faith, and that people who claim that Reason and/or Science have God in them are either fools or liars. He felt this way so strongly that he derived the logical principle of Parsimony to support his arguments. Parsimony is also called Occam's Razor in his honor.

 

[The-Jake]

Sorry, I'm kind of a debate nerd, any time an argument comes up I have to answer it. It's instinctual.

I'm the same way. When I spy a juicy debate topic, no pleading for mercy or on-topicness can stop me. I'm like some kind of Debaterminator.
...Actually, forget I said that.
But in that vein:

Also, can we attempt to maintain an air of civility here? We are both educated gentleman, and I will not fault you for your opinion or say your statements are the stupidest thing ever. Please show me that same respect. Let us communicate on an intellectual level without debasing ourselves with ad hominem attacks, eh?

Please sir, we dance in dangerous territory here. I don't want to insight a flame war. Can we not communicate as adults? I do not fault you for your opinions. I simply state mine. I will not judge you as ignorant, stupid, or any of the other permutations for following Evolution, as any fault with the theory lies not with you, but with it's creators, and thus you and anyone else in the general public who follows the Theory of Evolution should not be thought less of for it. Can you not afford me the same courtesy while disagreeing with my views?

Sir, is the ad hominem really necessary? Really? If you want to disagree, then let's act like adults here. Otherwise we are no better than children, squabbling in a sand box.

Your argument has already been addressed, good sir. Also, please stop abusing Billy Mays mode. Caps lock was not meant for entire sentences.

Please drop the "more erudite than thou" attitude. In trying to one-up the other party even as you ask for civility, you undercut yourself.

 

[interspark]

Um, no. There is no evidence of either of these claims. Name one, just one, that actually has a full record, and then we'll talk.

ok, well its written in our genes that we decended from apes (you must believe in that much) and we evolved from there, with the smarter primates dominating from the others and the ones with more "human" genetics surviving while the remaining fell, look, evolution is the only theory that actually makes sense! whats your explanation for how we came to be?

 

[automatron]

The Theory of Evolution.

Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands

If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.

I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.

what are you talking about?!? you can see evolution with your own two eyes! you can see as fossils slowly change shape as you go on to younger fossils in sinc with the transformation of the earth! its there! its solid fact! anything else is just wishful thinking (aka - religion)
oh and btw natural selection and evolution are pretty much the same thing, natural selection is the process through which evolution occurs, say, the freaky fish thats (100-1 odds) grown legs hops out of the water and all his brothers and sisters get eaten by sharks, his kids inherit legs - they survive etc

Um, no. There is no evidence of either of these claims. Name one, just one, that actually has a full record, and then we'll talk.

Please, just stop. Not just you, stop this pointless argument. You're not going to change your mind, they're not going to change theirs, it's just getting pointless now.

OT: Read this on the internet about a college science lecture
Teacher: If an astronaut drops a pen on the moon, will it move or stay still?
Student: It will drop.
Teacher: Incorrect, as there is no gravity on the moon. (most of the class agreed with her)
Student: That makes no sense. If there is no gravity, then how do the astronauts stay there?
Teacher: They have heavy shoes...

Sorry, I'm kind of a debate nerd, any time an argument comes up I have to answer it. It's instinctual.

That's fine, but if you want to discuss evolution, then make a thread. Don't put an argument into another thread

 

[The-Jake]

@CJ1145

Yet if I sat here for millenia, punching you, your children, your children's children, etc. I would not see any increased resistance to the pain I inflict.

The Theory of Evolution does not predict that you would.

Dr. Szostak made replicating vesicles, as you put them, but at what point does it become definably life?

Definition: replicators + random variation + nonrandom selection = life. Definable; defined.

the scientific community stifles anyone that disagrees with evolution (which you capitalize as if it's your bloody god)

We don't allow the "There's no evidence because there's a coverup!" argument in science. No evidence means no evidence means no evidence. And the name of the theory is capitalized because it's a proper noun.

 

[The-Jake]

@Skylane14

Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from

The Theory of Evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life any more than the Theory of Gravity is intended to explain why the sky is blue. Hypotheses of Abiogenesis model the origin of life; the Theory of Evolution models the origin of species.

I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible.

That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet

You have proven nothing except natural selection is possible.

and SHOULD be classified as a highly-suspect theory until such a time when ACTUAL proof surfaces.

Scientists do not prove things. Scientists are not in the business of determining Final Knowledge; they are in the business of amassing a collection of statements that are more likely to be true than not to be. Thus, all scientific truths are provisional truths, to be updated whenever our collection of facts is. If you'll only accept a theory if the probability of it being incorrect or incomplete is 0%, then you've rejected absolutely all of science at one fell swoop.

These all equally available for discussion and descent. THAT is the basis of science.

This is my qualm with evolution, there is NO debate.

Lack of debate: Evolution could be a much stronger theory, if it were actually discussed on a real level. "Iron sharpens iron".

Thus, evolution SHOULD be up for debate

No. Issues in science are not settled by debate; they are settled by experiment. Science is not a democracy; it is an "empiricracy", which is a word I just made up but it still stands.

While natural selection(changes within a species) is a documented and rightly respected theory, grand evolution(such as Darwin's example of a finch turning into an eagle)has no support in actual proof as of yet.

[Chrono180:] Because as far a I know, scientists have yet to view speciation in a lab and thus it seems to be assumed that animal species can change species even though it has not been observed.

Show me one, just one stitch of proof that actual evolution, not natural selection, but actual, wide-scale evolution, has EVER occurred, and such a view would perhaps be justified. However, the above proof DOES NOT EXIST.

Flatly false. Google "observed instances of speciation".

However, whenever detractors come forth, they are simply called ridiculous louts, and have their credibility stripped.

Detractors with arguments based outside Knowledge Through Evidence are revealed as the ridiculous louts they are. Detractors with arguments based in fact are taken seriously. The Theory of Evolution survives because all objections of this type refute only specific details of the theory, and not the theory as a whole. And no, this does not make Evolution a "theory in crisis". Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, scientist got to revise previous assumptions when new facts are uncovered. The only way to stop ANY theory from being revised/extended for eternity is to kill every scientist in the world.

I have moral complications with mindset that evolution creates. ... Suffice to say I believe evolution to be too unbalanced in its principles to be a correct standpoint for general motivations.

The Theory of Evolution is a description of the physical world. It does not describe how things ought to be; it describes how they are. To mistake the latter for the former is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. Basing social policy on the Theory of Evolution makes as much sense as basing it on the Theory of Gravity.

if there is no fossil record of an animal, and no proof that it is around today, then how can you say it existed in the first place?

Based on the records of the animal that would be its ancestor and the animal that would be its descendant, it is more likely that it existed than that it did not.

Evolution is, in essence, the over-appliance of natural selection.

Large changes are made out of small changes, and nothing else. The crux of your reasoning is that there is a barrier to change that cannot be overcome with accumulated small changes; this assumption has no basis in fact. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are meaningless terms invented by non-scientists.

However, the question is this: Would the intermediate beings, feasibly, be able to survive?

There is no such thing as an "intermediate being". The pattern I've noticed with people who think the Theory of Evolution makes no sense is that they try to picture one animal changing into another in a straight line, with "half-features", developing from nothing into working features. If that's what the theory predicted, then "makes no sense" would be the perfectly logical conclusion, but that's NOT what the theory predicts. Evolution follows an incredibly meandering path, with new features developing from alteration or duplication of existing features.

If both man and ape can survive in an environment, then what impetus is there for evolution, if it is theoretically possible, to occur?

The process of evolution does not have foresight. If a species meanders into a situation where it loses fitness in its niche, it will either find another niche and develop fitness in that, or die.

However, at least around here, evolution is regarded as something untouchable

Sounds like you should move. The Theory of Evolution is the best and only explanation we CURRENTLY have, but if the proponents around you argue that it's the best and only explanation POSSIBLE, then you need to get yourself a better class of debate partner.

 

[DocBalance]

Sorry, I'm kind of a debate nerd, any time an argument comes up I have to answer it. It's instinctual.

I'm the same way. When I spy a juicy debate topic, no pleading for mercy or on-topicness can stop me. I'm like some kind of Debaterminator.
...Actually, forget I said that.
But in that vein:

Also, can we attempt to maintain an air of civility here? We are both educated gentleman, and I will not fault you for your opinion or say your statements are the stupidest thing ever. Please show me that same respect. Let us communicate on an intellectual level without debasing ourselves with ad hominem attacks, eh?

Please sir, we dance in dangerous territory here. I don't want to insight a flame war. Can we not communicate as adults? I do not fault you for your opinions. I simply state mine. I will not judge you as ignorant, stupid, or any of the other permutations for following Evolution, as any fault with the theory lies not with you, but with it's creators, and thus you and anyone else in the general public who follows the Theory of Evolution should not be thought less of for it. Can you not afford me the same courtesy while disagreeing with my views?

Sir, is the ad hominem really necessary? Really? If you want to disagree, then let's act like adults here. Otherwise we are no better than children, squabbling in a sand box.

Your argument has already been addressed, good sir. Also, please stop abusing Billy Mays mode. Caps lock was not meant for entire sentences.

Please drop the "more erudite than thou" attitude. In trying to one-up the other party even as you ask for civility, you undercut yourself.

I'm not trying to one up anyone, sir. When I debate, I debate with respect, civility, and politeness. To do otherwise is to debase the art. I have done otherwise in the past, and it is not necessary. I simply ask that we maintain an level of intellectual discourse, rather than descending into "Dude, you are, like, totally crazy and stuff." statements.

Um, no. There is no evidence of either of these claims. Name one, just one, that actually has a full record, and then we'll talk.

ok, well its written in our genes that we decended from apes (you must believe in that much) and we evolved from there, with the smarter primates dominating from the others and the ones with more "human" genetics surviving while the remaining fell, look, evolution is the only theory that actually makes sense! whats your explanation for how we came to be?

I'm done. I've made my opinions clear, if you read everything I've written thus far then you'll already know my answers. I have no purpose in repeating myself.

The Theory of Evolution.

Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands

If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.

I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.

what are you talking about?!? you can see evolution with your own two eyes! you can see as fossils slowly change shape as you go on to younger fossils in sinc with the transformation of the earth! its there! its solid fact! anything else is just wishful thinking (aka - religion)
oh and btw natural selection and evolution are pretty much the same thing, natural selection is the process through which evolution occurs, say, the freaky fish thats (100-1 odds) grown legs hops out of the water and all his brothers and sisters get eaten by sharks, his kids inherit legs - they survive etc

Um, no. There is no evidence of either of these claims. Name one, just one, that actually has a full record, and then we'll talk.

Please, just stop. Not just you, stop this pointless argument. You're not going to change your mind, they're not going to change theirs, it's just getting pointless now.

OT: Read this on the internet about a college science lecture
Teacher: If an astronaut drops a pen on the moon, will it move or stay still?
Student: It will drop.
Teacher: Incorrect, as there is no gravity on the moon. (most of the class agreed with her)
Student: That makes no sense. If there is no gravity, then how do the astronauts stay there?
Teacher: They have heavy shoes...

Sorry, I'm kind of a debate nerd, any time an argument comes up I have to answer it. It's instinctual.

That's fine, but if you want to discuss evolution, then make a thread. Don't put an argument into another thread

As you say, sir. I'm done responding, if anyone wants to continue this they can send me a message, I'm done derailing this otherwise excellent thread.

Keep your horns up, gents.

~Skylane

 

[Zayren]

I'm going to have to go with the follow clip from youtube. Just listen and be prepared for the stupid about to pour from your speakers. The women seems to have a complete lack of knowledge about anything. I'm a bit shocked she can even talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

Yes, that lady is rather retarded. But did you see this comment?

"Once again we see that liberals are the greatest threat America is facing. I'm looking forward to the second civil war so these damn people can be dealt with accordingly." I hope this guy was kidding.

I've also seen some extremely retarded comments on this very forum, but don't feel like searching for them.

 

[Druyn]

Today, in my history class: talking about the The Miracle at Dunkirk (or whatever) Beach:

Catalina: "Wait, that wasn't the same thing as that part in Saving Private Ryan, was it?"
Everyone else: "You mean D-Day?"
Catalina: "No, that thing from the opening of Saving Private Ry-"
Eyeverone: "Thats D-Day."
Catalina: "Oh, okay. Well were they the same thing?"
Everyone: "You are dumb as fuck."

 

[catalyst8]

We don't allow the "There's no evidence because there's a coverup!" argument in science. No evidence means no evidence means no evidence. And the name of the theory is capitalized because it's a proper noun.

Absolutely. And concisely put. Unfortunately scientific & religious processes are antithesis to one another; it comes down to science drawing a conclusion from all available evidence & religion drawing a conclusion from wishful thinking despite lack of evidence. The practitioners of one process can rarely accommodate contradictions the other.

Just take a look at the posts asserting a lack of evidence for a scientific theory when they don't even understand the meaning of the phrase, let alone understand the nature of the theory they're attempting to undermine. It's genuinely disturbing, but I think we simply have to accept that there's a significant proportion of people who've missed even a cursory introduction to the sciences or even critical thinking.

As soon as you see the "But it's only a theory" you know you might as well just shake your head in dismay & go & talk to someone with an education instead. The 'No evidence because it's a conspiracy' argument does make me laugh though, I wonder if the people that say it wear tin-foil hats while they stockpile firearms & tinned food because of the imminent Apocalypse of the Lizard-people/2012/God's Wrath/etc.

 

[skitzo van]

One girl in my school didn't know that were black people in America. The same year Obama was elected too...

HUH?!?!?!?!?!
You don't see that kind of stupid every day.
OT: Teacher, "The answer to number 2 is "The Judge"
Morbidly stupid person 1, "Is the answer to number 2 "The Judge?"
Teacher, "Yes"
Morbidly stupid person 2, "Is the answer to number 2 "The Maid?"
Teacher, "No"
Morbidly stupid person 3, "Is the answer to number 2 "The Judge?"
Me and the Teacher facepalmed

 

[Zayren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Not just stupid but some of the funniest ignorance I've ever seen

Oh god, so much this video.

But also people who take this video and go,"Lololol Americans sure are stupid!"

 

[Aschenkatza]

"Briefly explain what hard water is.

Ice"

 

[sheic99]

I once heard someone try to explain to our maths teacher that you can in fact divide by 0, using dividing pizza to further explain his theory. It was so stupid I can't even remember the specifics.

You can divide by zero; the result is infinity.

I always wondered about that.

You really can't. The closest thing you can do is take the limit of x as it approaches zero. Which basically means, you're dividing by an infinitely small number, but it's still more or less that zero.

 

[likalaruku]

There was this foreigner who insisted that Seattle was in Washington DC, & yes, he did specify DC & the white house & all. I know he's a forgeigner, but he was adamant about it & obviously put no research into his claim. Guess which DC monument he thinks the Space Needle is?